Josf looks deserving of an entry in the table I compiled here.
I feel like this is a very long shaggy dog story leading up to our new friend saying this is why he shouldn’t be arrested for not paying taxes.
I fear that as well, but I would welcome the opportunity to educate/debate a “sovereign citizen.”
At some point, however, he needs to get down to the meat of his specific complaint and stop rattling off these ill-defined or made up terms.
For example: “Criminal Rule” I have been a student of history, went to law school, and practice law. I have never heard this term. It is not in cited case law or constitutional history. So, maybe he is smarter than me and has found a term that I have never heard of.
His attempts to define it amount to no more than “rule by criminals against innocent people.” Okay, well, who are these criminals and who are these innocent people? When he tries to flesh that out it seems that the criminals are those with whom he disagrees and the innocent people are he and his ilk.
And the “Rule of Law.” I have heard that term. It is the idea that there is a structure under which disputes are settled instead of people having gunfights in the streets over these disputes. The OP characterizes it as some competing system to “Criminal Rule” which no longer exists because apparently we had the Rule of Law under the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, then something something and now we are under Criminal Rule and all laws are invalid for some reason.
I would suppose that since we are under this dictatorship of Criminal Rule, then my state murder laws were invalidly passed and we must empty the prisons. But I’m not sure because any attempt to flesh out this position is met with more words and terms that are jumbled.
He had me at “jury” (post 14). Then I followed his link to Dr Ed Rivera (“Hi everrryboddy!”) in post 70 and his thesis that George Washington had two different offices: President of the United States of America (legal) and President of the United States (fraudulent! criminal!!)
Now I’m a believer!
11If I had the time I would answer every question that is a challenge to someone in one division made by someone in the opposing division.
-
Division = Rule of Law
a. Matthew 7:12
b. Golden Rule
c. Due process of law such as trial by jury according to the common law -
Division = Criminal Rule
a. Might makes right
b. Survival of the fittest
c. Despotism
d. Tyranny
e. Organized crime without the color of law
f. Organized crime under the color of law
g. Majority Rule
I do not have unlimited time. I can answer what I consider to be the most valid points I’ve read in the words that I think constitute debate.
Human Action offers his opinion once again:
It is an opinion of someone on one side of an obvious division to claim that congress can do whatever they want, make up any rule they want, as those elected to congress move along from situation to situation, in time and place, such as a complete change in government from the federation that documented an acknowledgement of trial by jury according to the common law, formed a document (a document I can call a statute as I am not the only one calling it a statute) called a Declaration of Independence, order the end of the slave trade, form Articles of Confederation, prosecute a defensive war, receive the surrender from the criminal army of aggression, and after all that then a new group in congress claims to have the authority to offer the State legislatures a completely different government.
Key words: “…sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…”
That can mean anything including this: “…they drafted a radical revision to the Articles.”
The expressed purposes are said to be rules governing the amending process, but the “rules” governing those who wrote those rules governing the amending process are either dictatorial or not, and if not then it is possible that the rules remain inside Rule of Law.
Before going on there may be an easier way to accurately account for who is on which side.
Those who use the word “democracy” include those on both sides.
Those on the Criminal Rule side (Tyranny, Dictatorship, Organized Crime under the color of law, etc.) are apt to claim that democracy means rule (criminal rule) by the majority (the majority of criminals who rule) and said version of democracy has been said to be (by analogy) two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.
That is not the meaning of democracy according to those who offered competitive versions of Rule of Law in Athens Greece.
Explain in the following link and quotes:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html
Complaints about my writing are not relevant when meanings are offered by other people in other words.
Reinforcements a found in another link and another quote:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/thomas-paine-the-rights-of-man/text.php
The formation of the original voluntary federation was in direct response to the war of aggression (a crime) perpetrated by the British. Representatives formed a federation and that is documented with a Declaration of Independence, the first Statute (or whatever you want to call it), and it clearly states the duty of free people while the document serves as an indictment concerning the crimes perpetrated by the aggressors that cause the action in defense. The action in defense is the formation of a federation, by representatives, not by so called Majority Rule (whatever that might mean by anyone claiming such a “rule”).
So due to time constraints, I can leave that distinction clearly on the debate table.
Those on one side (Criminal Rule) claim that the Majority (of criminals) Rule, because they somehow gain the power to do so in point of fact.
On the other side are those who form voluntary federations for the mutual defense of everyone being attacked by the criminal attackers, and the modes used by the defenders vary along the lines of Rule of Law; and that is why one of the first things done by the founders founding the voluntary federation were keen on offering testimony crediting trial by jury according to the common law as the law of the land: which is not statutory law, it is moral law.
Dude, just pay your fucking taxes.
I reject your divisions; majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”.
I’ve never claimed that Congress could “do whatever they want”. If you’re going to engage in absurd strawmen, then I’ve no interest in continuing.
Congress certainly had to the power to “offer the state legislatures a completely different government”, see Article 13:
And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
More importantly, the states have and have always had the power to make whatever sort of union they can agree on. The federal government was created by the states, not the other way 'round.
They are not dictatorial. Note that then were voted on at the convention, then again by each state’s convention.
I’ll pass on rule-by-lot; there are a number of drawbacks which go unmentioned in your article. For example, the Councillors have no incentive to represent the people’s interests, rather than using their office purely for their own gain.
Oh, I can still complain; for example, about the sheer number of topics you newly introduce with each post. Are we to stop and debate Athenian democracy now?
I agree that monarchy is incompatible with democracy…I wasn’t aware that this was controversial. Not even monarchists claim this.
The adoption of the Constitution wasn’t pure majority rule, either…
I again reject your divisions. I am not on a “criminal rule” side.
Check the Bill of Rights, trial by jury is right there.
What you’re proposing sounds more like a sort of slavery than anything else: a federation is formed by representatives, and for the rest of time, everyone else in the nation is bound by those representatives’ whims. In one doesn’t share your contempt for elections, democracy, and self-determination, it’s an awful system. Further, your system amounts to a belief that your ideas should be the law, by virtue of your belief in their validity.
Human Action:
- Majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”
- Majority rule is often criminal rule as proven in many ways, many times, many places, for those who care to know, so as to hold the criminals to an accurate accounting of their crimes perpetrated upon their victims.
Trying my best to stay within the Topic boundaries, and to utilize my time as best I can, the above is a representation of one division that is opposing another division.
To claim that my divisions are rejected misses the point offered; if that is what is being done in the rejection offered by Human Action. I am not alone. There are those who share the division in question (so it is not “my” division exclusively), as people throughout history offer words rejecting so called Majority Rule for reasons that are indictments presented to a candid world where the so called Majority are clearly outside the will of the moral people i.e. the so called Majority perpetrate crimes upon the so called Minority.
Majority rule:
- “Two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.” Common phrase used today.
- “Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.” Common understanding in Athens democracy.
- “It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.” Thomas Paine - Rights of Man.
- “That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:” John Adams federal congressman during the formation of the federation in response to criminal British war of aggression.
Human Action:
When the wolves (or human beings acing like wolves) decide to eat the sheep (or extort wealth from the sheeple) they do so because they have the power to do so, even if the sheeple outnumber the wolves. The reference is in agreement with the understanding offered in my own words. So the rejection by Human Action appears to reject more than just my divisions.
Republican forms of government (the public thing, or the interests of the whole people) versus (divided from) Majority Rule (so called) are special interest groups (calling themselves the “majority”) working for their special interests at the expense of whoever is paying the special interests whatever is demanded by the special interests. I did not make up, and accept as true, alone, this phrase in common use today, whereby Majority Rule (so called) is said to be “two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.” Far from rejecting the idea, as other people may do, my view is to accept the idea as a valid idea.
At the time of the Athenian democracies the people knew how Oligarchy works to the detriment of the people at large and so democracy, as a rule, was against so called Majority Rule, where it was rejected as a valid method, it was rejected that voters vote so as to cause their special interest groups to gain power over other members of the whole people. That is not my idea, I was not alive at the time, but the idea survives today, and to reject that idea is to reject that ancient idea, not just my idea. To reject the ancient idea, the current idea, or the idea expressed in my words, is an obvious placement of the one doing the rejecting into a division other than the clearly stated idea whereby democracy IS NOT majority rule whereby voters decide what everyone must do, without question. Democracy is not Majority Rule.
Human Action:
I can ask: Is the division being rejected as my division applicable to the Athenian method of maintaining democracy by rejecting Majority Rule, where they did not want Majority Rule because Majority Rule is not democracy, as Majority Rule is a sure fire way to establish Oligarchy, and Oligarchy was rejected for reasons that can be explained in minute detail in the Athenian example, and in the indictment of crimes perpetrated by the British in the Declaration of Independence (first draft) before the slave trade crimes were struck out of the document?
I can illustrate my question above with a rewriting of the rejection offered by Human Action. My question is to ask if the rewritten statements can be validated as true or false, in the opinion of Human Action?
I reject the Athenian division; majority rule is in no way “Oligarchy.”
Is that the same rejection as the original rejection?
Human Action:
or
I reject the modern division; majority rule is in no way "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for “dinner.”
or
"I reject the Thomas Paine division; majority rule is in no way “monarchy.”
or
“I reject the John Adams division; majority rule is in no way “anti-federal” (the voluntary federal agreement ends when the monarchy perpetrates crimes that are presented, enumerated, as the monarch is indicted for specific crimes that end the federal nature of the voluntary union.”
Does the rejection only apply to my use of the term criminal rule?
In other words does Human Action only reject the use of the word “criminal rule” as I use the term in context?
If so, then the rejection is purely an argument over semantics, yes, no, or some reasonable other response?
Do you carry a government issued drivers license?
Your argument is based on a number of assumptions, and I don’t share those assumptions. Thus, I don’t argue based on your terms. I do, indeed, reject more than just your “divisions”.
Evidently, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist schism was just a prelude to a general, if scattershot, debate about the legitimacy of government. That’s fine, but for it work, I suggest you argue from first principles. Instead, you seem to be doing the opposite, arguing backward - from the Federalists, back to your* ideas about government and taxation.
- Here, as elsewhere, when I say “your ideas” and the like, I don’t mean that they are necessarily original to you, but they are indeed “yours”, as you are the one introducing them to the debate and thus endorsing them.
Moving on, then, I’ll answer your specific questions, hopefully as a prelude to a full argument from first principles. Certainly, if you wish to argue for a government based on your conception of morality, with everyone else a slave to your values and ideals, you’ll need a hell of an argument.
Again, rule-by-lot has its own flaws, which I consider to be worse than regular old representative democracy’s flaws.
Not necessarily, no.
Pretty much; in that they are absolute statements presented without basis in fact.
Not necessarily, no.
Paine didn’t argue that. He was arguing for a republic, as opposed to a monarchy. A monarchy isn’t majority rule, by definition.
Adams didn’t argue that; his complaints weren’t against majority rule, as the colonies weren’t represented in Parliament.
Adams wrote Massachusetts’ Constitution, which was the model for the later US Constitution, and it created a government by majority rule: eligible voters selected representatives, who then voted bills into law.
I reject your use of “criminal rule” as a catchall for things you don’t like; it’s a well-poisoning value judgment.
I managed to find the time to return and read the following words:
That is simply wrong. The most damning testimony concerning first principles is offered in the words of John Adams explaining the voluntary nature of federalism and then in the later words of Thomas Jefferson enumerating, presenting, documenting, specifying, and indicting the crime of slavery perpetrated by the oligarchical, monarchal, despotic, tyrannical, and criminal British.
That is first principles.
I won’t bother stepping into any additional land mines placed in the field. That land mine is easy to spot, easy to mark, easy to step around or over, in debate on this topic.
Good, because I was about to ask “Is Josf stallin’?”
So you are saying that the first principles of American society are:
- any relationship by states to a national government must be voluntary, and
- slavery is bad
?
What is the factual basis for that belief? Preferably, again, in a few sentences using terminology and words commonly understood by English speakers.
I must disagree. Arguing from first principles would require, for instance, establishing that government should be based on voluntary association, or what makes a government oligarchical/monarchal/etc, and whether and when that justifies war to force a political separation.
The words of Adams and Jefferson are not, themselves, first principles. They were statesmen, not holy prophets.
I do not argue. One of my first driving principles is the principle of agreement.
If agreement can be found through debate, then there are competitive ways to find agreement through debate.
It just so happens that the natural law principle of agreement is in line with the Christian words having to do with the law.
If people live and let live, where people agree to live and let live, then those people constitute civil society whereby people do unto others as they would have others do unto them, which is a voluntary association.
As soon as (John Adams confirms) someone in Civil Society (federated society) steps outside of the voluntary nature of voluntary association, is as soon as the one stepping outside is the one accurately accounted as the one doing wrong, ending the voluntary association, ending the federal arrangement, as the accurately accounted aggressor does onto others before others can do unto him, her, or them.
The available literature confirms (in many forms along the way) that the federation formed in mutual defense, against the criminal British, that each State was independent, and was therefore able to choose independently, when, where, how, why, and how much the people in the other States step over the line of first principles (voluntary association) and they, in the other States, end the federation because they initiate involuntary actions. The criminals (of course) are going to agree that the victims are victims, because they can, they have the might they think makes anything they do right. On the other hand, those being attacked are going to agree that they are being attacked, and the federal agreement remained a federal agreement when it was agreed upon that the criminals could not dictate to the victims that the victims had no say, and therefore no defense, no remedy, in cases where the officers of law used the office of law as a launching platform for deception, threat of violence, and aggressive violence upon targeted, innocent, victims. That is clearly the message in the words of John Adams on the nature of federation.
The forms where this battle raged between federal (voluntary, independent, people in States, can join, or not join, pay for, or not pay for, a voluntary, federal, mutual defense association, where aggressors are accurately accounted as aggressors by those people in each State) and national, between federal and consolidated, between federal and monarchial, between federal and oligarchical, dictatorial, tyrannical, deceptive, threatening, and aggressively violent, the forms where this battle raged between federal and criminal were many.
The forms where this battle between the two divisions raged between federal (voluntary) and anti-federal (involuntary) were many.
-
Debates during the formation of the Federation.
-
Debates during the writing of the Declaration of Independence (where John Adams speaks about the meaning of federation as a voluntary association.)
-
Debates during the prosecution of the defensive war.
-
Debates during the formation of the second Statute after the first Statute known as a Declaration of Independence, where the second Statute was a formalization of the existing voluntary agreement to federate for mutual defense, and the second Statute constitutes those voluntary Articles of Confederation.
-
Debates during an attempted internal Military coup after the British surrender.
-
Debates during a battle between Revolutionary Forces in Massachusetts as criminal aggressors took over the Massachusetts government forming an Ant-Federal, Anti-Republican, Anti-Democratic, criminal government which enslaved the productive people in Massachusetts.
-
Debates during the time after the last Revolutionary Battle in Massachusetts concerning the payments of War Debts owed to War Profiteers.
-
Debates during attempts to amend the existing constitution, statute, articles of confederation, forming the federation, so as to pay the War Debts owed to the War Profiteers.
-
Debates during a final fraudulent attempt to “amend” the existing federation whereby those calling for “amending” the existing federation set aside the voluntary federation in favor of a consolidated nation state in which a conscripted national army taken from the whole population of people in all the States, commanded by a dictatorial War Debt collecting Tyrant, can crush Revolutionary Spirit at the exclusive power of will commanded by War Profiteers seeking War Debt Collection.
-
Debates after the criminal take-over of the former federation concerning a change from trial by jury according to the common law to a reforming of debt collecting courts known alternatively as Equity, Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, Maritime, and Summary Justice courts, enforced before the Bill of Rights amended the new Consolidated Nation State document.
-
Debates after the criminal take-over of the former federation concerning the establishment of a fraudulent Central Bank whereby private interests are given exclusive license to extort wealth from every producer in America through that well known “Central Bank” legal fiction, legal tender, Ponzi scheme.
-
Debates over the enforcement of debt collecting done by a Tyrannical Military Dictator who assembles an army of conscripts to invade a former independent State in order to collect an excise Tax, which mirrors the same crimes perpetrated by the former British Military Dictator’s crimes so well presented to a candid world in Statute #1 a Declaration of Independence.
-
Debates over the anti-federal Alien and Sedition Acts, whereby anyone daring to speak against the anti-federal Dictator number 2 is summarily found guilty of a crime in a Summary Justice Kangaroo Court proceeding.
-
Debates formed officially as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
First principles enumerated are based upon Christian Religious Law, written as Matthew 7:12, those on the side of federation (voluntary association explained by John Adams before the publishing of the Declaration of Independence), are those conforming to natural law added to Christian Religious Law, when they maintain voluntary mutual defense against enemies of Liberty foreign and domestic up to and including the point at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison add to the papers that constitute the statutes of the American government (federal, republican, and democratic, or anti-federal, anti-republican, and anti-democratic) with those documents known as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
Now, and thankfully there is someone among this group (divided into two groups) who may be familiar with economic principles. From first principles of Christian Religious Law, to Natural Law, it can easily be shown, also, how Economic Law works for one side against the other side.
For the true voluntary federal side the law works for all of those on that side. True voluntary federal law does not work for those who prefer anti-federal, involuntary, criminal, slave/master, subject/tyrant, relationships. Of course the special interests can no longer feed off of their victims when voluntary, federal, mutual defense works for everyone EXCEPT the criminals.
If there is a demand for effective defense against criminals foreign and domestic, then free markets work best for everyone, again excepting the criminals. Where competitors are afforded free access to the free market, those competitors offer higher quality and lower cost supplies to meet that demand, then first principle market forces (individual decisions made by individuals that constitute a collective sum total of market force) voluntarily force suppliers to produce, and supply, higher quality, and lower cost, competitive supplies to meet the demand for effective, mutual, voluntary, defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. First principles of Economic Law agrees with both Christian Religious Law, and both of those agrees with Natural Law first principles.
-
Do unto others as you would have other’s do unto you (do not initiate violence aggressively) as the Religious First Principle of Law based upon the quoted words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:12.
-
Natural Law as explained by John Adams whereby voluntary (federal) mutual defense is destroyed the moment an aggressor breaks the peace.
-
Economic Law decidedly favors voluntary free markets in all human action including the human action where voluntary federalists debate against involuntary anti-federalists and words inspire actions to supply effective defense against all enemies of free markets foreign and domestic.
Explained well enough in the following link and quote:
I’m sorry you didn’t get the government you want, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. Now that you’ve explained all that’s supposedly wrong with our country, could you please tell us what the solution is?
So, Josf, you’d like a federal republic; wherein the central government has limited, enumerated powers; governed by the rule of law; with a Christian slant; and featuring a free-market economy? Great news! That’s what the United States is.
I really don’t know what else to say…this is akin to arguing that indigo is a moral and correct color, and violet is a criminal, fraudulent one.
For Pete’s sake, John Adams was a Federalist!
Holy shit. It’s English, but at the same time it isn’t. It’s like Jabberwocky or A Clockwork Orange. Or possibly just a very old build of Babelfish.
It’s English, Captain, but not as we know it. I recommend observation from a safe distance until we know what we’re dealing with here.
I’m confused…